Gynecologic Surgery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Is Universal Screening Mandatory?

This study is aimed at evaluating the results of the universal preoperative screening for COVID-19 in gynecologic cases operated on during its outbreak in a tertiary care hospital in Bangkok, Thailand. A retrospective descriptive study was done on all patients who underwent elective or emergency gynecologic surgeries during the pandemic period in Thailand (April 15 to June 5, 2020). The COVID-19 screening results by symptom-based screening, risk-based screening, and RT-PCR for COVID-19 were collected from the electronic medical records. Among 129 patients who underwent gynecologic surgeries, none had a positive RT-PCR for COVID-19. Symptom-based screening found no patients with positive symptoms for COVID-19. Risk-based screening found 4 patients (3.1%) who were in contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases and 4 patients (3.1%) who were healthcare personnel. In conclusion, routine preoperative RT-PCR for COVID-19 may need to be reconsidered among asymptomatic individuals in a low-prevalence country during the well-controlled COVID-19 situation. Larger studies are required to ascertain the benefit of universal preoperative COVID-19 testing.

Where Have All the Emergencies Gone? The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Obstetric and Gynecologic Procedures and Consults at a New York City Hospital.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on surgical volume and emergency department (ED) consults across obstetrics-gynecology (OB-GYN) services at a New York City hospital. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care academic medical center in New York City. PATIENTS: Women undergoing OB-GYN ED consults or surgeries between February 1, 2020 and April 15, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: March 16 institutional moratorium on elective surgeries. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The volume and types of surgeries and ED consults were compared before and after the COVID-19 moratorium. During the pandemic, the average weekly volume of ED consults and gynecology (GYN) surgeries decreased, whereas obstetric (OB) surgeries remained stable. The proportions of OB-GYN ED consults, GYN surgeries, and OB surgeries relative to all ED consults, all surgeries, and all labor and delivery patients were 1.87%, 13.8%, 54.6% in the pre-COVID-19 time frame (February 1-March 15) vs 1.53%, 21.3%, 79.7% in the COVID-19 time frame (March 16-April 15), representing no significant difference in proportions of OB-GYN ED consults (p = .464) and GYN surgeries (p = .310) before and during COVID-19, with a proportionate increase in OB surgeries (p <.002). The distribution of GYN surgical case types changed significantly during the pandemic with higher proportions of emergent surgeries for ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and concern for cancer (p <.001). Alternatively, the OB surgery distribution of case types remained relatively constant. CONCLUSION: This study highlights how the pandemic has affected the ways that patients in OB-GYN access and receive care. Institutional policies suspending elective surgeries during the pandemic decreased GYN surgical volume and affected the types of cases performed. This decrease was not appreciated for OB surgical volume, reflecting the nonelective and time-sensitive nature of obstetric care. A decrease in ED consults was noted during the pandemic begging the question "Where have all the emergencies gone?" Although the moratorium on elective procedures was necessary, "elective" GYN surgeries remain medically indicated to address symptoms such as pain and bleeding and to prevent serious medical sequelae such as severe anemia requiring transfusion. As we continue to battle COVID-19, we must not lose sight of those patients whose care has been deferred.

Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.

Prioritizing Surgical Services during on-Going Pandemic Response: Modification and Reliability of the Medically Necessary Time Sensitive Surgery (MeNTS) Scoring Tool.

Health systems are struggling to manage a fluctuating volume of critically ill patients with COVID-19 while continuing to provide basic surgical services and expand capacity to address operative cases delayed by the pandemic. As we move forward through the next phases of the pandemic, we will need a decision-making system that allows us to remain nimble as clinicians to meet our patient's needs while also working with a new framework of healthcare operations. Here, we present our quality improvement process for the adaptation and application of the Medically Necessary Time-Sensitive (MeNTS) toolto gynecologic surgical services beyond the initial COVID response and into recovery of surgical services; with analysis of the reliability of the modified-MeNTS tool in our multi-site safety net hospital network. This multicenter study evaluated the gynecology surgical case volume at three tertiary acute care safety net institutions within the LA County Department of Health Services: Harbor-UCLA (HUMC), Olive View Medical Center (OVMC), and Los Angeles County + University of Southern California (LAC+USC). We describe our modified-Delphi approach to adapt the MeNTS tool in a structured fashion and its application to gynecologic surgical services. Blinded reviewers engaged in a three-round iterative adaptation and final scoring utilizing the modified tool. The cohort consisted of 392 female consecutive gynecology patients across three Los Angeles County Hospitals awaiting scheduled procedures in the surgical queue.The majority of patients were Latina (74.7%) and premenopausal (67.1%). Over half (52.4%) of the patients had cardiovascular disease, while 13.0% had lung disease, and 13.8% had diabetes. The most common indications for surgery were abnormal uterine bleeding (33.2%), pelvic organ prolapse (19.6%) and presence of an adnexal mass (14.3%). Minimally invasive approaches via laparoscopy, robotic-assisted laparoscopy, or vaginal surgery was the predominant planned surgical route (54.8%). Modified-MeNTS scores assumed a normal distribution across all patients within our cohort (Median 33, Range 18-52). Overall, ICC across all three institutions demonstrated "good" interrater reliability (0.72). ICC within institutions at HUMC and OVMC were categorized as "good" interrater reliability, while LAC-USC interrater reliability was categorized as "excellent" (HUMC 0.73, OVMC 0.65, LAC+USC 0.77). The modified-MeNTS tool performed well across a range of patients and procedures with a normal distribution of scores and high reliability between raters. We propose that the modified-MeNTS framework be considered as it employs quantitative methods for decision-making rather than subjective assessments.

The impact of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic on the surgical management of gynecological cancers: Analysis of the multicenter database of the French SCGP and the FRANCOGYN group.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has put tremendous pressure on the French healthcare system. Almost all hospital departments have had to profoundly modify their activity to cope with the crisis. In this context, the surgical management of cancers has been a topic of debate as care strategies were tailored to avoid any delay in treatment that could be detrimental to patient wellbeing while being careful not to overload intensive care units. The primary objective of this study was to observe changes in the surgical management of pelvic cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic in France. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study analyzed data from the prospective multi-center cohort study conducted by the French Society for Pelvic and Gynecological Surgery (SCGP) with methodological support from the French (FRANCOGYN) Group. All members of the SCGP received by e-mail a link allowing them to include patients who were scheduled to undergo gynecological carcinologic surgery between March 16th 2020 and May 11th 2020. Demographic data, the characteristics of cancers and the impact of the crisis in terms of changes to the usual recommended coarse of care were collected. RESULTS: A total of 181 patients with a median age 63 years were included in the cohort. In total, 31 patients had cervical cancer, 76 patients had endometrial cancer, 52 patients had ovarian or tubal cancer, 5 patients had a borderline tumor of the ovary, and 17 patients had vulvar cancer. During the study period, the care strategy was changed for 49 (27%) patients with postponed for 35 (19.3%) patients, and canceled for 7 (3.9%) patients. Surgical treatment was maintained for 139 (76.8%) patients. Management with neoadjuvant chemotherapy was offered to 19 (10,5%) patients and a change in surgical choice was made for 5 (2,8%) patients. In total, 8 (4,4%) patients tested positive for COVID-19. Data also shows a greater number of therapeutic changes in cases of ovarian cancer as well as a cancelation of a lumbo-aortic lymphadenectomy in one patient with cervical cancer. Hospital consultants estimated a direct detrimental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for 39 patients, representing 22% of gynecological cancers. CONCLUSION: This study provided observational data of the impact of the COVID-19 health crisis on the surgical management of gynecological cancers.

Maintaining surgical care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative cohort study at a tertiary gynecological cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is the cornerstone of gynecological cancer management, but inpatient treatment may expose both patients and healthcare staff to COVID-19 infections. Plans to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have been implemented widely, but few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of these plans in maintaining safe surgical care delivery. AIM: To evaluate the effects of mitigating plans implemented on the delivery of gynecological cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A comparative cohort study of patients treated in a high-volume tertiary gyneoncological centre in the United Kingdom. Prospectively-recorded consecutive operations performed and early peri-operative outcomes during the same calendar periods (January-August) in 2019 and 2020 were compared. RESULTS: In total, 585 operations were performed (296 in 2019; 289 in 2020). There was no significant difference in patient demographics. Types of surgery performed were different (p = 0.034), with fewer cytoreductive surgeries for ovarian cancer and laparoscopic procedures (p = 0.002) in 2020. There was no difference in intra-operative complication rates, critical care admission rates or length of stay. One patient had confirmed COVID-19 infection (0.4%). The 30-day post-operative complication rates were significantly higher in 2020 than in 2019 (58 [20.1%] versus 32 [10.8%]; p = 0.002) for both minor and major complications. This increase, primarily from March 2020 onwards, coincided with the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining surgical throughput with meticulous and timely planning is feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic but this was associated with an increase in post-operative complications due to a multitude of reasons.

Impact of COVID-19 in gynecologic oncology: a Nationwide Italian Survey of the SIGO and MITO groups.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused rapid and drastic changes in cancer management. The Italian Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (SIGO), and the Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynecologic malignancies (MITO) promoted a national survey aiming to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on clinical activity of gynecologist oncologists and to assess the implementation of containment measures against COVID-19 diffusion. METHODS: The survey consisted of a self-administered, anonymous, online questionnaire. The survey was sent via email to all the members of the SIGO, and MITO groups on April 7, 2020, and was closed on April 20, 2020. RESULTS: Overall, 604 participants completed the questionnaire with a response-rate of 70%. The results of this survey suggest that gynecologic oncology units had set a proactive approach to COVID-19 outbreak. Triage methods were adopted in order to minimize in-hospital diffusion of COVID-19. Only 38% of gynecologic surgeons were concerned about COVID-19 outbreak. Although 73% of the participants stated that COVID-19 has not significantly modified their everyday practice, 21% declared a decrease of the use of laparoscopy in favor of open surgery (19%). However, less than 50% of surgeons adopted specific protection against COVID-19. Additionally, responders suggested to delay cancer treatment (10%-15%), and to perform less radical surgical procedures (20%-25%) during COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: National guidelines should be implemented to further promote the safety of patients and health care providers. International cooperation is of paramount importance, as heavily affected nations can serve as an example to find out ways to safely preserve clinical activity during the COVID-19 outbreak.

[Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak on the management of patients with gynecological cancers]. / Impact de la pandémie de Covid-19 sur les modifications thérapeutiques des patientes atteintes de cancers gynécologiques.

OBJECTIVE: The exceptional health situation related to the SARS-Cov2 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) required a deep and very quickly adaptation of management practices in gynecological cancer. The main objective is to estimate the proportion of patients with treatment modifications. METHOD: This is a multicenter prospective study conducted in 3 university gynecological cancer departments (HCLyon, France) during the period of confinement (March 16 to May 11, 2020). All patients with non-metastatic breast cancer or gynecological cancer were included. The planned treatment, postponement, delay and organizational modifications (RCP, teleconsultations) were studied. RESULTS: Two hundred and five consecutive patients were included, average age 60.5±1.0. 7 patients (3.4%) had SARS-Cov-2 infection, 2 patients died. One hundred and twenty-two patients (59.5%) had a treatment maintained, 72 patients (35.1%) postponed, 11 patients (5.4%) cancelled. Of the 115 (56.1%) planned surgeries, 40 (34.8%) postponed, 7 cancelled (6.1%). 9 patients (7.8%) had a surgical modification. Of the 59 (28.8%) radiotherapy treatments scheduled, 24 (40.7%) postponed and 2 (3.4%) cancelled. Of the 56 (27.3%) chemotherapy treatment planned, 8 (14.3%) postponed and 2 (3.6%) cancelled. One hundred and forty-five patients (70.7%) have been discussed in multidisciplinary meeting. One hundred and fifty-eight patients (77%) had a teleconsultation system. CONCLUSION: Our study assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on therapeutic management of patients with gynecological cancer during the period of confinement. This will probably improve our management of an eventual epidemic rebound or future health crisis.

Postoperative assessment of nosocomial transmission of COVID-19 after robotic surgical procedures during the pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To assess potential nosocomial coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) transmission in patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic procedures during the pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective study in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopy in urology or gynaecology within 2 academic hospitals. Patients underwent local preoperative COVID-19 screening using a symptoms questionnaire. Patients with suspicious screening underwent coronavirus real time-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and were excluded from robotic surgery if positive. Patients with symptoms postsurgery were systematically tested for coronavirus by RT-PCR. One-month postsurgery, all patients had a telephone consultation to evaluate COVID-19 symptoms. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients underwent robotic surgery during the study period (median age: 63-years [IQR: 53-70], 1.8 male: female ratio). Oncology was the main indication for robotic surgery (n = 62, 91.2%) and 26 patients (38.2%) received a chest CT-scan prior to surgery. Eleven patients (16.2%) were symptomatic after surgery of whom only 1 tested positive for coronavirus by RT-PCR (1.5%) and was transferred to COVID-19 unit with no life-threatening condition. No attending surgeon was diagnosed with COVID-19 during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery seemed safe in the era of COVID-19 as long as all recommended precautions are followed. The rate of nosocomial COVID-19 transmission was extremely low despite the fact that we only used RT-PCR testing in symptomatic patients during the preoperative work-up. Larger cohort is needed to validate these results.

Gynecological Surgery and COVID-19: What is the Impact and How Should I Manage it?

It is estimated that around 28 million surgeries will be postponed or canceled worldwide as a result of this pandemic, causing a delay in the diagnosis and treatment of more than 2 million cancer cases. In Brazil, both the National Health Agency (ANS) and National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) advised the postponement of elective and non-essential surgeries, causing a considerable impact on the number of surgical procedures that decreased by 33.4% in this period. However, some women need treatment for various gynecological diseases that cannot be postponed. The purpose of this article is to present recommendations on surgical treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Estima-se que cerca de 28 milhões de cirurgias sejam postergadas ou canceladas no mundo em decorrência desta pandemia, causando atraso no diagnóstico e tratamento de mais de 2 milhões de casos oncológicos. No Brasil, tanto a ANS (Agencia Nacional de Saúde) como a ANVISA (Agencia Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária) orientaram o adiamento das cirurgias eletivas e não essenciais, tendo um impacto considerável no número de procedimentos cirúrgicos com diminuição de 33,4% neste período no Brasil. No entanto, algumas mulheres necessitam de tratamento para várias doenças ginecológicas, algumas das quais não podem ser adiadas. O objetivo deste artigo é apresentar recomendações sobre o tratamento cirúrgico durante a pandemia de COVID-19.

Gynecologic surgical considerations in the era of COVID-19.

The goal of this chapter is to review the various considerations necessary to safely perform gynecologic surgery in the setting of a viral pandemic. The ability to triage surgical cases at a time of reduced resources is facilitated by both state and national societal guidelines in addition to various scoring systems. Concerns by health care personnel of viral transmission intra-operatively require appropriate use of PPE and pre-operative COVID-19 testing. Implementation of mitigation strategies around aerosol-generating procedures such as laparoscopy protects health care personnel involved in the surgical care of the patient.

Performing gynecologic cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey: A multicenter retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To report the perioperative outcomes of 200 patients with gynecologic cancer who underwent surgery during the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the safety of surgical approach. METHODS: Data of patients operated between March 10 and May 20, 2020, were collected retrospectively. Data were statistically analyzed using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics for Windows v. SP21.0. RESULTS: Data of 200 patients were included. Their mean age was 56 years. Of the patients, 54% (n=108), 27.5% (n=55), 12.5% (n=25), and 2% (n=4) were diagnosed as having endometrial, ovarian, cervical, and vulvar cancer, respectively. Of them, 98% underwent non-emergent surgery. A minimally invasive surgical approach was used in 18%. Stage 1 cancer was found in 68% of patients. Surgeons reported COVID-related changes in 10% of the cases. The rate of postoperative complications was 12%. Only two patients had cough and suspected pneumonic lesions on thoracic computed tomography postoperatively, but neither was positive for COVID-19 on polymerase chain reaction testing. CONCLUSION: Based on the present findings, it is thought that gynecologic cancer surgery should continue during the COVID-19 pandemic while adhering to the measures. Postponement or non-surgical management should only be considered in patients with documented infection. Gynecologic cancer surgery should continue during the COVID-19 pandemic while adhering to measures. Only 1% of patients developed COVID-19-related symptoms during the postoperative follow-up period.